Electoral Reform

[ssiguy]

Now that the election is over, the debate will be turning to electoral reform which Canada is in desperate need of.

Justin has confirmed his stand that this was the last FPTP election which is great news. There are many different types of reform he can look at and the process will not be easy.

The thing I think is of even more importance is Senate reform. The House should definitely be reformed but the Senate MUST be. Already we are short 22 Senators out of a Senate of 105 seats and that number is only going to grow.

Our Senate needs to become the 3 "E"s ...........elected, effective, and equitable. Currently we are suffering from the 3 "U"s...........unelected, unaccountable, and under investigation. The issue now is that the Senate is held in such distain by the citizenry that any more appointments will have stinging political repercussions.

By 2030 due to forced retirement at 75 will be left with only 12 Senators and that assumes all of them stick around till then or don't kick the bucket.

[ssiguy]

To add to the above, just letting the Senate die off is also not optional. All legislation must pass the Senate in order to get Royal Assent and become law. That is in our Constitution and yet the recent ruling on Senate Reform by the Supreme Court also stated that the PM can not just let the Upper House die off due to attrition as the ruling stated that the PM cannot change the Constitution by action or, very importantly, lack of action. Letting the Senate die off by not naming new Senators is giving the PM defacto ability to change the Constitution.

The Supreme Court also said that it cannot allow vacancies to go unfilled indefinitely because that will erode the regional makeup of the Upper House.

In other words, you can't let it die, you can't ignore it, and yet politically you can't make new appointments..........it's a hell of a pickle but doing nothing is not optional.

[jigglysquishy]

I doubt electoral reform happens. I could be proven wrong, but I don't think it gets passed by a majority government.

The Senate should stay. We need an Upper and Lower House. Senators appointed by provinces? 100% in.

[GernB]

Senate reform will be a whole can of worms. Do we really want to reopen the constitutional debate? AKAIK all Justin has said he's willing to do is to appoint some kind of commission to recommend appointments to the Senate. Indeed, in view of the SCC's decision on Harper's proposed reforms, there's little he can do.

[jmt18325]

Trudeau will do exactly what he promised to with the Senate - he'll create committee, much like the one used for the Order of Canada, and they will suggest names to him of people to fill the vacancies.

[ssiguy]

I understand the idea of wanting the provinces to make their own appointments but the provinces would probably decline. Think about, any appointment to the Senate gives back nothing but bad political repercussions. Why would the provinces want to stick their necks out to let the PM/federal government off the hook? The provinces have zero to gain and everything to lose.

Also even if one province agreed it still makes the Upper House a retirement home due to be appointed. It would have no moral authority to question anything.

[ssiguy]

Filling vacancies is definitely not what Canadians had in mind {or will tolerate} when they say they are reforming the Senate.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I understand the idea of wanting the provinces to make their own appointments but the provinces would probably decline. Think about, any appointment to the Senate gives back nothing but bad political repercussions. Why would the provinces want to stick their necks out to let the PM/federal government off the hook? The provinces have zero to gain and everything to lose.

.

This was more or less the problem when Trudeau Mk.1 was rolling out his senate reform ideas in the 70s. The provincial governments with a few exceptions weren't particularly interested in provincial input into federal decision making. They were far more interested in more provincial legislative authority and money to go with it. I can't really see that things would be all that different now.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by GernB

Senate reform will be a whole can of worms. Do we really want to reopen the constitutional debate? AKAIK all Justin has said he's willing to do is to appoint some kind of commission to recommend appointments to the Senate. Indeed, in view of the SCC's decision on Harper's proposed reforms, there's little he can do.

Imho, there's little else that needs to be done, other than ensuring that the Senate gets its administrative house in order. If Trudeau can pull off some sort of non-partisan eminent persons group to recommend candidates for Senate appointments, we'd have what the system needs.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Imho, there's little else that needs to be done, other than ensuring that the Senate gets its administrative house in order. If Trudeau can pull off some sort of non-partisan eminent persons group to recommend candidates for Senate appointments, we'd have what the system needs.

In an ideal world (for me) we'd have eight year terms for and provincial appointments to the Senate. But I suspect you're correct as to what will happen.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by GernB

In an ideal world (for me) we'd have eight year terms for and provincial appointments to the Senate. But I suspect you're correct as to what will happen.

If Senate terms could be established without need to revise the Constitution, I could support that as well.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If Senate terms could be established without need to revise the Constitution, I could support that as well.

Aye, that's the rub.

Thought it was a stretch that the SCC could hold that limiting the term to eight years derogated from the Senate's powers, but it's done and that's where we stand.

[osmo]

There is little incentive to reform the electoral system with its wonks that gave you a majority. Why would they do it? With minority government pressure its the only chance it would of been a reality.

With a majority mandate there is enough action you can create to distract the public from the FPTP system. It will be old news by Christmas and won't creep agian in 4 years time.

My money is they won't change anything aside from Election Canada and how it does operations and its business.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Filling vacancies is definitely not what Canadians had in mind {or will tolerate} when they say they are reforming the Senate.

Thats exactly what they promised to do. The difference is, they will do it through appointments of merit.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Thats exactly what they promised to do. The difference is, they will do it through appointments of merit.

More power to him if he does. But there'll be lots of Liberal supporters (financial and otherwise) who will want their reward for faithful service to the cause. How long will he resist even if he's so inclined?

[Taeolas]

Originally Posted by osmo

There is little incentive to reform the electoral system with its wonks that gave you a majority. Why would they do it? With minority government pressure its the only chance it would of been a reality.

With a majority mandate there is enough action you can create to distract the public from the FPTP system. It will be old news by Christmas and won't creep agian in 4 years time.

My money is they won't change anything aside from Election Canada and how it does operations and its business.

Normally there is little incentive.

On the other hand, Trudeau did make a VERY public promise that this was the last FPTP election.

And anyone in the party knows that this election was a very "Stars Aligned" fluke that caught pretty much everyone by surprise. If the Liberals want to stay in power reliably, they know they need to change the system.

So with those two things in mind, I'd say there's a better incentive to see some reform. It's not guarenteed by any means, but it's more likely to happen than it has been in the past.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by osmo

There is little incentive to reform the electoral system with its wonks that gave you a majority. Why would they do it? With minority government pressure its the only chance it would of been a reality.

With a majority mandate there is enough action you can create to distract the public from the FPTP system. It will be old news by Christmas and won't creep agian in 4 years time.

The problem for proponents of change is that the FPTP system didn't produce particularly objectionable results this time, even from their point of view. It will be interesting to see whether he pushes forward with an effort to change it, particularly after similar efforts were rejected by voters in Ontario and B.C.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by GernB

More power to him if he does. But there'll be lots of Liberal supporters (financial and otherwise) who will want their reward for faithful service to the cause. How long will he resist even if he's so inclined?

It will be interesting to see. Since Trudeau sent the Liberal Senators out of the Liberal caucus, something I expect he'll stick with, the pressure should be diminished, but it won't disappear.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Filling vacancies is definitely not what Canadians had in mind {or will tolerate} when they say they are reforming the Senate.

It's actually exactly what he promised:

We will bring real change to the Senate.

The status quo is not an option: the Senate needs to change. We need to end the partisan nature of the Senate.

We also believe that government should focus its efforts on the priorities of Canadians, not on more rounds of constitutional negotiations.

We will create a new, non-partisan, merit-based process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments.

From : https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/senate-reform/

[1overcosc]

I like Trudeau's idea of the Senate as a non-partisan, collegiate place where prominent Canadian minds go to act as an unbiased sanity check on the government. It's actually a modern interpretation of what the Senate was intended to be in the first place.

Ideally, this arms-length non-partisan appointment process should be constitutionally entrenched. Even if Trudeau respects the system he creates, there's no guarantee a future PM will do the same. If there's one lesson to be learned from the Harper years, it's that conventions are not enough to keep the PM in check.